Where to start with the great Philosophers ?

Aurelius is a good place to start for Stoicism, but for philosophy in general, you really should start with Plato's dialogues.

Aristotle -> the Bible -> hegel -> kant(optional) -> Kierkegaard -> Aquinas.
That covers philosophy, the only thing left is to work backwards into analytic philosophy and assimilate it into your framework thereby understanding it in a way that analytic philosophers themselves are incapable of doing due to the limits of enlightenment era thought.
After that, go into the sciences, if you manage to comprehend the relationship between quantum mechanics and metaphysics then you've basically solved the universe at that point.

Chinese (Confucius, Lao Tzu)
Greeks (presocratics, plato, cynics, aristotle, skeptics, epicurus)
neoplatonists (plotinus, augustine, zeno)
Romans (Stoics)
Scholastics (Aquinas, scotus, ockham)
Rationalists (descartes, spinoza, leibniz, hobbes)
empiricists (locke, hume, berkley)
utilitarians (bentham, mill)
rousseau
Kant
Schopenhauer
German Idealists (fichte, schelling, hegel)
Marx
Kierkegaard
Nietzsche
Dilthey
Husserl
Heidegger
sartre
pragmatists (dewey, james)
henri bergson
analytics (carnap, frege, wittgenstein, quine)
frankfurt school
post structuralists (deleuze, derrida, lacan, foucault)

Start with Plato, really. That is, at least one "socratic" dialogue (the short, easy ones), and something harder that could very well be The Republic. Republic isn't as hard as it seems and you'll grab several specific ideas.

From there on, the rest doesn't matter much. You don't absolutely need Aristotle. Stay away from the authors that are too hard to read or that require many previous knowledge : Kant, Hegel, Descartes etc. Or try them if you want, but don't keep reading if the first pages are a chore.

Two things you can try to find :
- among the classic authors, one that you enjoy reading and understand pretty well. Could be Schopenhauer, Rousseau, Stuart Mill, Lucretius, whatever. Even Hannah Arendt. Maybe "Laughter" by Bergson.
- a contemporary philosopher whose writing style is simple and clear, and who both expresses original ideas and refers to the tradition (so that you get a grasp of this tradition). I dunno who this could be. I enjoyed Alain de Botton when I was younger, but he's got such a bad reputation now. Maybe Clément Rosset.

Anyway, you DON'T want or need to follow a path that goes from the most classic and fundamental authors down to the later ones. While aiming at some important authors whenever possible, you better start with someone that both provides clear ideas and the desire to keep reading. That's why Plato is a good start.

You can start by reading Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, then the British empiricists etc. Sure you'll miss out if you don't read any Plato or Aristorle but a lot of courses start with modern philosophy because the debates that were happening in the 17th-18th centuries are still relevant.
When you get to the Germans though, at that point I recommend going back and reading the Greeks.

Specifically, Descartes' Discourse on Method and Meditations, and Spinoza's Ethics were the first works I tackled in philosophy, and they got me real fired up, and don't require specific knowledge of ancients.

You already have a simple answer. Start with the Greeks.
Not memeing at all, you will really find a lot of sensible arguments about the human condition as well as many similarities about their society and the one we live in. In his important dialogues Plato defines what it is to be a philosopher and to live a life dedicated to wisdom, and you can't really say that someone ever disproved him about that. Read him at least, even though Aristotle can be said to have been even more influential for our society.

Also, you can regard reading the Greek s as training. I assure you that when you first read a serious philosopher you will get so overwhelmed by their abundance of ideas that even if you understand what they are trying to say, you will not remember it or be able to reproduce it.

>efficient
>save time
>Greeks senile
>Nietzsche 2truth4me
Next.

Thank you user. I will start with Plato. Ordering the Republic right now; Will read Aurelius too for shits and giggles. I am basically just trying tot pave my way up till Nietzsche so I can enjoy him more than I already have.

This is a pretty unique suggestion; Why do you think this particular order is preferable to the alternate "Plato -> Stoicism" that others suggest ?

The brief summary of Spinoza that I encountered seemed to lack imagination and was very strait forward; didn't quite captivate me immediately. I can look further but I have an intuitive feeling that it's not what I am looking for.

That is a lifetime worth of literature right there and I am slow reader.

Think about what philosophy you are most interested in and build around that. There's no need to read in a chronological order, as long as you are learning and enjoying it

Nah, Nietzsche and Deleuze reign supreme in terms of enjoyment.

>. I assure you that when you first read a serious philosopher you will get so overwhelmed by their abundance of ideas that even if you understand what they are trying to say, you will not remember it or be able to reproduce it

After reading Will Durant's summaries I did exactly that I jumped strait on Neticze and while I was able to comprehend those concepts with close reading; it was a painful process and I think I skipped a lot of nuance. I recently picked a copy of Schopenhauer's Life as Will and Idea and old Schop called me out for being a brainlet in the introduction. He referred me back to Kant which is pretty dense. So before making the mistake again and trying to read Kant, I figured it was worth starting at the start. Although, This process of jumping back and forth does give me approximate knowledge which is helps me understand faster; I am dyslexic.

Schopenhauer's "Studies in Pessimism" was incredibly enjoyable for me and it made me feel secure in my pessimistic impulses. I enjoy Nietzsche because it prevents me from Nihilism and inspires me to partake in culture. I may be interested in other ideas but I need to explore further.

Would you go outside of Philosophy? I can think of Emil Cioran or Hermann Hesse, I think these two might be what you are looking for (if you haven't read them already)

>Greeks were unable to perceive life outside of their own bubble
>start with the Romans. Aurelius or Plato.
>Plato
what the fuck

Who are these people ? Can you give me the basic gestalt ?

Cioran wasn't very interested in the strict codes of philosophy, so what he wrote, you could call an antiphilsophy which is about the intensities and sensations of living.

Hesse is more flowerly and warmer though equally profound, I'd suggest Siddharta by Hesse and History of Decay by Cioran, followed by the heights of despair and the trouble with being born

>the heights of despair and the trouble with being born

Sounds surreal, will look into it. Melancholy phrases like these always make feel cozy and special somehow, weird.